Obama Supports Faith-Based Programs

[Pangloss]

That subject line ought to raise a few eyebrows around here, but I just live for stories like this!

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/07/bushs-faith-bas.html

 

You know it's a strange political year when Barack Obama -- who is trying to convince voters that John McCain represents a third term for George W. Bush -- embraces one of President Bush's signature domestic programs.

 

Obama, campaigning at a church youth program in Zanesville, Ohio, called for expanding Bush's controversial faith-based initiative. Obama took issue with how the Bush White House has handled the program, citing a lack of adequate funding and a partisan ax to grind. But he embraced the idea of empowering "millions of Americans who share a similar view of their faith, who feel they have an obligation to help others."

 

His position seems to be not that it's a violation of the separation of church and state, but that Bush didn't do ENOUGH of it, and he supported the wrong set of zealots!

 

So, what, we're going to publicly fund "Condoms from Christ" and "Jesus Loves Pregnant Teens" now?

[iNow]

To be frank, I think it's a political play to secure the vote of both 1) religious groups afraid that he's a secret muslim, and 2) people who like some of what Bush did while in office. While it makes my "anything religious is bad" detectors go nuts, I think it's a smart move politically.

 

I'd read the following before I saw your thread. I'll share a few of their quotes:

 

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0702/p25s10-uspo.html

 

"I believe that change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques," he said, during a visit to Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, Ohio.

 

The senator was careful to highlight key areas of difference between that initiative and his own proposal for a Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

 

"Make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea," Obama said.

 

He emphasized that those receiving funds could not proselytize the people they help nor could they discriminate in hiring practices on the basis of religion. Faith-based groups could only use federal dollars for secular programs. And he committed to ensure that taxpayer dollars would only go to "programs that actually work."

 

<...>

 

 

The Obama plan would create a new President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in the White House and retain the offices in various federal agencies that oversee grants to faith-based and other community groups. The council would launch a training effort – by which larger charities trained smaller local organizations – and also hold grant recipients accountable by conducting rigorous performance evaluations.

 

His plan also envisions a $500 million per year summer learning program to focus efforts on closing the education achievement gap of poor and minority students. He aims to serve a million children in the effort.

[Pangloss]

"Make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea," Obama said.

 

That's a good quote. I mean, I could harp on the fact that Bush has probably said exactly the same thing, and it's a bit unfair that people believe it from Obama and not from Bush, but I can understand to some extent why people feel that way, and there may be a larger point to be gained by this -- specifically, the idea that total, 100% separation is neither necessary nor even what the framers had in mind.

[iNow]

That's a good quote.

 

Here it is in full (along with a good overall story about this):

 

 

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/01/faith/index.html

Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea -- so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

 

 

You see, while these groups are often made up of folks who've come together around a common faith, they're usually working to help people of all faiths or of no faith at all. And they're particularly well-placed to offer help. As I've said many times, I believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.

 

That's why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today -- from saving our planet to ending poverty -- are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.

 

I'm not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I'm not saying that they're somehow better at lifting people up. What I'm saying is that we all have to work together -- Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike -- to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

 

 

That definitely gives better context than the original AP story which seemed pretty skewed and all too sensationalized.

[CDarwin]

I've always, personally at least, been made the double standard progressives often apply to religion in the public sphere. Creationism is ignorant bunk, certainly, but is Martin Luther King's religious objections to segregation? The Social Gospel movement deeply influenced modern progressivism as a whole. *shrugs*

[Pangloss]

You notice how he does that without speaking in any way ill of the religions in question? And also manages not to insult secular aid groups in the process? That's not just good politics, it's real respect.

[bascule]

WTF?

 

As a fan of the Establishment Clause this saddens me...

 

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.[/b'] Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

 

It's unconstitutional to fund faith-based programs with tax money

[iNow]

Then why haven't the programs of Bush been struck down?

[bascule]

Then why haven't the programs of Bush been struck down?

 

I dunno, why hasn't Bush been impeached?

[iNow]

Touche. (although, it may have something to do with the fact that it would hand the presidency to dick cheney... <shudder> )

 

I am not one for faith based anything. I want to be clear on that. I think religion unecessarily gets a free pass and that it's time for humanity to move beyond such arcane and childish fairy tales.

 

My point was that, if faith based initiatives went against the Establishment Clause, then Bush's programs would not have been allowed. So, since his were allowed, then so will be Obama's.

 

 

Reading the part that you bolded above, my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that they are (supposedly) not teaching or practicing religion, but instead providing humanitarian type aid.

 

It's a fine line, I quite agree.

[swansont]

If you look at the details of what Obama said, the money would only be available for secular programs.

 

"First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

 

I think the argument is that not everything that a church does is subject to the establishment clause.

 

So if a church runs a soup kitchen, where anybody is welcome, and they promise not to proselytize in the soup kitchen (you'd use a different room for that, I suppose) then they would be eligible. From a practical standpoint I don't see how you can guarantee this, but it sounds good.

 

The really disappointing thing to me is I can't tell where the real policies end and the pandering begins. There are things I like about what each candidate has said, and other things that make me bang my head against the wall.

[Pangloss]

Reading the part that you bolded above' date=' my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that they are (supposedly) not teaching or practicing religion, but instead providing humanitarian type aid.

 

It's a fine line, I quite agree.[/quote']

 

Right. There's nothing inherently religious about telling kids they shouldn't have sex until they're married. I think what scares many opponents has been the level of religious organization behind the wall.

 

But let's be honest -- for many liberals it's also about the specific ideologies being supported. They'd be more okay with it if their own ideology were the one supported by tax dollars. A parish priest telling kids not to have sex until they're married and passing out government-bought condoms doesn't bother a liberal in the slightest. But take out the condoms, replace them with an "abstinence concert" (paid for with tax dollars) and put a thousand evangelical Christians in the audience, and even if they're not uttering a word about Christ your typical liberal is going to die of apoplexy.

 

So I think a consistent policy is important. This is what I was getting at a while back when I talked about how Bush's policies have been valuable in an unintended sense, bringing up subjects like this, pushing the boundaries a little and raising questions that really should have come up before.

[Phi for All]

A parish priest telling kids not to have sex until they're married and passing out government-bought condoms doesn't bother a liberal in the slightest. But take out the condoms, replace them with an "abstinence concert" (paid for with tax dollars) and put a thousand evangelical Christians in the audience, and even if they're not uttering a word about Christ your typical liberal is going to die of apoplexy.

"...And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

Ah, a chance to stretch my socially liberal, fiscally conservative legs a bit. It's not the fact that the abstinence concert comes from an evangelical Christian base, it's the fact that abstinence programs don't work and are a waste of taxpayers money. Sex education together with a condom program works the best, but a, "Don't have sex until you're married, here, have a condom" approach is still more socially AND fiscally sound than, "Don't have sex until you're married, sing along with me now..."

[CDarwin]

But let's be honest -- for many liberals it's also about the specific ideologies being supported. They'd be more okay with it if their own ideology were the one supported by tax dollars. A parish priest telling kids not to have sex until they're married and passing out government-bought condoms doesn't bother a liberal in the slightest. But take out the condoms, replace them with an "abstinence concert" (paid for with tax dollars) and put a thousand evangelical Christians in the audience, and even if they're not uttering a word about Christ your typical liberal is going to die of apoplexy.

 

Well, I'd say anyone who wasn't a fan of massive wastes of public funds would be a bit perturbed by that. Especially since 'abstinence education' more-often-than-not (and I've been through it) involves at least 50% of the time devoted to telling kids that contraceptives don't work and are useless.

 

Oh, well, Phi for All pointed that out.

[Pangloss]

Whether abstinence programs "work" is very much a subjective and debatable point, not an easy, absolute judgment. For one thing you have to decide what constitutes "working" -- if you've prevented one pregnancy, isn't that SOME level of success? I agree that may not be efficient, but that clearly shows that "work" is a subjective, relative value, not an absolute.

[Phi for All]

For one thing you have to decide what constitutes "working" -- if you've prevented one pregnancy, isn't that SOME level of success?

What a fiscally liberal thing to say! It's people like you that are going to bankrupt this country with your leftist application of social reform with no thought of what it costs hard-working, financially conscious taxpayers.

 

I know you're trying to lead me towards a certain cost/benefit ratio regarding sex/STD program success but that isn't feasible. As in science, you stick with the theory that provides the best answers at the time, but only until a better theory comes along. Right now, sex education with condom distribution is what works best to prevent teenage pregnancies and STDs.

[swansont]

Whether abstinence programs "work" is very much a subjective and debatable point, not an easy, absolute judgment. For one thing you have to decide what constitutes "working" -- if you've prevented one pregnancy, isn't that SOME level of success? I agree that may not be efficient, but that clearly shows that "work" is a subjective, relative value, not an absolute.

 

On the contrary, it's very easy to say whether or not it works, if you ask the right questions. Do teens get pregnant at the same rate in this program vs some other program? If the pregnancy rate is lower than some baseline, it works. One problem is a lot of these programs don't gather good data, and try and put up a smokescreen when presenting their results (I'm looking at you, Heritage foundation http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/abstinence_eval.pdf )

 

But people have done objective studies on it. It doesn't lower pregnancy rates.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23782717/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/

 

"Sex education" is about not getting pregnant or catching a disease.

"Abstinence only" programs seem to be about keeping kids from having sex.

[tvp45]

I'm an Obama supporter and I think he's lost his mind. Does anybody really believe that a woman wearing a Burka is going to be treated equally at a food bank run by the Jesus Wants White Folks to be Rich Church of the Absolutely True Gospel?

[Sisyphus]

"Sex education" is about not getting pregnant or catching a disease.

"Abstinence only" programs seem to be about keeping kids from having sex.

 

That's exactly right. The irony is, of course, that "abstinence education" doesn't even work for that. Teen sex rates aren't any lower, and teen pregnancy rates are much higher. Those statistics are widely available, but abstinence education is still pushed for and practiced in many places. So in a way, it isn't even about keeping kids from having sex (since it doesn't, and we know that), it's just pure idealogical stubbornness. "We must tell them that sex is the worst thing in the world, no matter how much we have to lie to them, and how many lives are preventably ruined (they were sluts anyway)."

[Pangloss]

Swansont, rather than try to push you off your anti-abstinence soap box, all I really have to do is point out that even sex education approaches tell students about the value of abstinence. Definitive policy statements after a mere couple of studies, some of which used questionable methods, is about making a political statement, not a scientific one. Some of those questions raised by the Heritage Foundation are pretty darned relevant, and they are questions YOU would be raising had the study conclusions been the opposite.

 

So you've just made a political statement, NOT a scientific one. And that brings me right back to my point: Phi's Obama quote ("...And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.") seems to be intended to give us the impression that he will make his decision STRICTLY along a scientific, logical rationale, with no ideological input whatsoever, but I don't think that's clear at all, nor is it what I think many on the left actually want to see.

[Sisyphus]

Swansont, rather than try to push you off your anti-abstinence soap box, all I really have to do is point out that even sex education approaches tell students about the value of abstinence.

 

I may be missing something here, but doesn't that just make abstience-only education all the more pointless? My school district had what was probably among the most liberal sex-ed programs around. It began very early (well before anyone hit puberty) and was extremely comprehensive, covering the proper use and statistical effective of every contraceptive known to man, as well as all the different "ways," including the medical significance of, yes, homosexual acts. And what was continually hammered home during all of this was that the only 100% effective contraceptive was abstinence, which is something I don't think most abstinence-only proponents realize. And a lot of people held off on sex for that reason. And plenty of others did have sex (like teens everywhere), but I never heard of anyone having unsafe sex, because everyone knew how incredibly stupid that would be, which is saying a lot for teenagers, who do incredibly stupid things all the time. So it worked. I know that's merely anecdotal, but it was very convincing (and backed up by the statistics anyway).

 

As for abstinence-only programs, they're taught the only alternatives are total abstinence or immediately get AIDS or something. But even an idiot teenager can see that's bull, because they see their peers having sex and nothing bad happening to them. And so they think they're being lied to (they are) and that sex is safe (it isn't), so they get it on anyway without knowing what they're doing, and end up preggers.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Sisyphus

[swansont]

Swansont, rather than try to push you off your anti-abstinence soap box, all I really have to do is point out that even sex education approaches tell students about the value of abstinence. Definitive policy statements after a mere couple of studies, some of which used questionable methods, is about making a political statement, not a scientific one. Some of those questions raised by the Heritage Foundation are pretty darned relevant, and they are questions YOU would be raising had the study conclusions been the opposite.

 

So you've just made a political statement, NOT a scientific one.

 

I have an anti-abstinence soapbox? I guess it doubles as my anti-homeopathy, anti-magnetic-therapy, anti-astrology and anti-a-couple-of-other-thing soapbox, all of which have one thing in common: the data say they don't work. And by data, I mean after you've taken out testimonials and other anecdotal data that don't meet the scientific burden of what constitutes evidence.

 

Which studies used questionable methods?

 

Saying that studies show that the programs don't work is NOT a political statement (the accusation of which is a fallacy of misdirection). If you can find legitimate problems with these studies, I will retract the statement that they don't work, just like I'd adjust to any other scientific finding where new data was presented.

 

 

If the studies had turned out the other way, and I still objected, then it would be a political statement. It's one thing to acknowledge that there are reasons other than science to make policy, but it's another thing altogether to simply ignore, or even misrepresent science, as sometimes happens, in order to justify policy.

[Phi for All]

Swansont, rather than try to push you off your anti-abstinence soap box, all I really have to do is point out that even sex education approaches tell students about the value of abstinence.

I'm not trying to talk for Tom, but advocating a comprehensive sex education program is NOT an "anti-abstinence" stance.

Definitive policy statements after a mere couple of studies, some of which used questionable methods, is about making a political statement, not a scientific one. Some of those questions raised by the Heritage Foundation are pretty darned relevant, and they are questions YOU would be raising had the study conclusions been the opposite.

I'm not sure about the "mere couple of studies" part, but again, it's logical to fund the best program available when it comes to spending tax money, even if it's only a couple of studies that show that.

 

So you've just made a political statement, NOT a scientific one. And that brings me right back to my point: Phi's Obama quote ("...And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.") seems to be intended to give us the impression that he will make his decision STRICTLY along a scientific, logical rationale, with no ideological input whatsoever, but I don't think that's clear at all, nor is it what I think many on the left actually want to see.

The "left" again! Left socially, or left fiscally? I'd need to know if Obama was also considering funding an abstinence-only group that has absolutely no church affiliation, because, as a fiscal conservative, I want to know if he's throwing my money at social programs that have low success as opposed to those that have a higher rate.

 

I couldn't find any groups like that (after a relatively short google) and it seems we would need to trust church groups, in this instance, to stick to social assistance and leave their ideologies out of it if they want some of *my* taxes.

 

I'd like to see some strict watchdog measures on any program involving a faith-based group. I keep picturing teens waiting for their condoms in a long line which just happens to stretch through a room where the preacher is practicing for Sunday's sermon....

[Pangloss]

Swansont, you're the one making definitive statements. All I'm saying is that many of those people (including some (not all) in your own links) stop well short of definitive statements, talk about the need for additional studies to look at key factors that those studies didn't look at (such as whether pledges were a factor, when they were made, whom they were made to, etc, which was in fact one of Heritage's complaints), and other very equivocal and less-than-100%-certain positions.

 

All of which you thoroughly dismissed, issuing us a couple of stone tablets that you now expect us to carry around like the Ten Commandments. That is an opinion and a political statement.

[bascule]

My point was that, if faith based initiatives went against the Establishment Clause, then Bush's programs would not have been allowed.

 

Allowed by whom? Short of Congress impeaching Bush or cutting off funds to the programs, the US court system / SCOTUS is the only entity that can put a stop to unconstitutional activities, and the process of putting a stop to them is long and drawn out.

 

Bush has a long history of programs I at least consider to be unconstitutional. These include the warrantless wiretapping program (which violates the 4th Amendment) as well as denying Guantanamo inmates habeas corpus (at least they cleared that one up)

 

Reading the part that you bolded above, my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that they are (supposedly) not teaching or practicing religion, but instead providing humanitarian type aid.

 

Among other things, Bush has authorized them to use "sacred texts" (e.g. the Bible) within federally funded programs:

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0508-07.htm